The single market turned 30 years old in 2023. It was the achievement for which the president of the European Commission between 1985 and 1995, Jacques Delors, is most remembered. But that project, as it was conceived, has reached the end of its journey and the European Council has decided to commission one of its most brilliant former members with a report to look to the future. The request was formalized in September and came from the Spanish and Belgian presidencies. The one identified was Enrico Letta (Pisa, 57 years old), former Italian prime minister and president of the Jacques Delors Institute, who this Wednesday begins a three-day trip to Spain to present his conclusions.
“We look to the future by searching for our roots,” he explains in his Roman office a few days before traveling to Spain to present a document that took him to 65 European cities to conduct more than 400 interviews with social agents, politicians and economists. A few weeks ago he presented it at the European Council, where Much more than a market (title of the document) aroused great interest. Even the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, assured that he would make it the heart of action during the semester in which his country will assume the rotating presidency of the EU.
Ask. The president of France, Emmanuel Macron, opened the campaign for the European elections at the Sorbonne University with some pessimism. “Europe could die,” he said. Do you share that vision?
Answer. I also think that the situation needs to be dramatized. The report expresses a great sense of urgency and an alert linked to what the French call décrochagethe gap that opens between us and the United States: they fly and we are doing very badly. It is the fear that Europe will not be able to respond to the challenge and each State will return to its national affairs thinking that this dimension allows it to regain competitiveness. And that would be a blatant mistake.
Q. Is it an end of cycle?
R. The experience of these last five years has been based on decisions made on the basis of an imminent crisis. It has been more a story of reaction than action. And when you bring all your politics to react to crises, you are effective but short-term. You just keep that momentum until the crisis is over. Think about Europe and healthcare: we suddenly discovered that healthcare was something that needed to be addressed together. But after the covid, we have forgotten about it. We must recover that mentality to have a structure.
Join Morning Express to follow all the news and read without limits.
Subscribe
Q. That way of looking at it would lead us to Delors
R. Of course, its two great achievements, the single market and the euro, have been the result of actions, not reactions. He did it because he had a vision. And today structural changes are once again needed in three major areas: telecommunications, energy and financial markets. We all think that this union already exists in Europe, but these decisive fields for competitiveness only have a state dimension. And this fragmentation makes us much weaker than the Americans.
Q. What is the reason for this distance with the United States?
R. One is that of that fragmentation. When I spoke with Delors upon receiving the assignment, he told me: “You must change the dimension of the world compared to when I created the single market. Then the sum of China and India was 4% of world GDP. Today it is 25%.” It is evident that this goes against European countries. The national dimension that was chosen for energy, financial markets or telecommunications has become our grave. The clearest case is Airbus. Why are we world leaders in aircraft construction? Because we have Airbus. But if the company were state-owned, Boeing would be the leader.
Q. What is the main risk today in the EU?
R. The paralysis. But I am more optimistic than five years ago, when the heart of the electoral campaign was post-Brexit. Then there was talk of Frexit in France, of Italexit in Italy… It was a very strong speech. Today it does not exist, which means that even the Eurosceptic forces have entered the order of ideas in debating the leadership of Europe. Europe has been stronger than Euroscepticism. Today Brexit has gone down in history as a failure.
Q. What will be the role of the EU in a world dominated by powers such as China, the US or India in which it plays less and less?
R. Europe must be the defender of the values of the rule of law and individual freedoms. There is no other space like the European one for this. Look at what is happening in the US with fundamental issues like abortion rights: these are things we would never have imagined. The freedom of the individual is questioned in many places, and Europe must be the great defender of this idea.
Q. And does Europe’s freedom depend on being able to defend itself?
R. EU members must be part of NATO, which must be consolidated. But it is true that much of the challenges of conflicts occur on Europe’s borders. And we cannot be completely dependent on the American will to want to confront them. We must have a voice in the chapter and strengthening the defense is essential.
Q. As?
R. Strengthening European defense financing capacity. We cannot leave national states alone. We have to unify it. A European fund would be ideal.
Q. Should the arms industry also be an economic engine?
R. Of course. In the report we have written that of all the money we have spent to defend Ukraine, 80% has also been used to create jobs in Wisconsin, Turkey or South Korea. With the European taxpayer’s money, jobs must be created in Europe.
Q. Single army yes or no?
R. It is important, but you have to start from the financial part. Defense is today the main requirement to work on. I propose a common defense market.
Q. Would the entry of Ukraine and the Western Balkan countries have a positive impact?
R. The previous expansion was a success. This will be complicated and delicate. This expansion would have no comparison with the previous one, which only had to be accompanied financially. There will be serious political problems in the Balkans, and the peculiarity of Ukraine is that it is as big as a third of Europe, but has a much smaller population.
Q. What would be the advantages for the EU of Ukraine’s integration?
R. All previous enlargements have been fantastic boosts for the entire European economy. Every time you expand the market, you give more space to companies. You add tens of millions of citizens and consumers to the single market. And an extension of this type would be the same. The European crisis is not the daughter of enlargement, but of reduction. That is, Brexit. And it has been dramatic.
Q. Is it irreversible?
R. In the report I quote the United Kingdom twice and propose grounds on which to reopen the relationship. And one of them, the easiest, is defense. For them it is feasible. Nobody can think that it is a way for them to return.
Q. Is immigration necessary for the EU to move forward?
R. The key issue is that the demographic trend is disastrous and is part of this decline that we are experiencing. If we don’t fight it, it will be worse. And the only way to do it immediately is good and effective skilled immigration integration work.
Q. The leadership of the EU is not as clear as it was a decade ago, especially if we look towards a Germany with a looming crisis. What impact will it have?
R. France and Germany play a fundamental role in Europe, but the EU-27 needs more diffuse leadership. It is no longer like the times of Kohl and Mitterrand. Then it was enough for Felipe González and Giulio Andreotti to agree and everything was already decided. Today it is perceived differently.
Q. You talk about the green transition as an investment vehicle.
R. The integration of financial markets will be essential to pay the costs of the green transition. It will cost a lot and it has to be done with public and private money, for which savings must be used through an incentive mechanism to invest in that transition. On my trip to Europe I understood that there was a very strong division between the countries that want a new recovery plan paid for with public money to finance the transition (France, Spain, Portugal or Belgium) and those that are completely closed (Dutch, German, Czechs, Swedes). My design is for it to be a plan with public and private money.
Q. It seems difficult to convince everyone of the same thing.
R. My report is not a dream book. They are feasible things. That is why, for example, I do not include any treaty changes. That would have been giving wings to those who don’t want to do anything. I propose points of consensus between countries, between frugal and Mediterranean countries.
Follow all the international information on Facebook and xor in our weekly newsletter.
.
.
_
